OT - Boy Scouts?

[RonB]

Well, here we go. With the Scouts decision to admit gay's compromise a great organization? Many churches have already said they will not support this decision; and many troops are sponsored by churches.

RonB

[K Miller]

Churches - practicing what they preach on a case by case basis.

[Hunter Hampton]

That would be really sad..... if it happens I suspect some wealthy
forward thinking people will step up.

Hunter

[Hunter Hampton]

On 5/23/2013 7:57 PM, K Miller wrote:
> Churches - practicing what they preach on a case by case basis.

WWJD?

Hunter

[dm_callier]

On May 23, 7:50 pm, RonB <rnrbro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, here we go.  With the Scouts decision to admit gay's compromise a great organization?  Many churches have already said they will not support this decision; and many troops are sponsored by churches.
>
> RonB

Not making the decision for so long had already compromised the
organization. If it is to survive it might have to exist as something
other than a de facto appendage of organized religion. If it isn't
flexible enough to adapt then it will wither and die.

[K Miller]

Forgive them and suggest they go forth and sin no more.

[Syamu Mamilla M]

dfdfdfdf

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

From where I sit it appears another bigot factory took a shot.

The military took it and survived, the boy scouts will take the shot
and be better for it. Eliminating bigot factories is always a good
thing.

mike
--

Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[Hank]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:50:23 PM UTC-4, RonB wrote:
> Well, here we go. With the Scouts decision to admit gay's compromise a great organization? Many churches have already said they will not support this decision; and many troops are sponsored by churches.
>
>
>
> RonB

Like churches and all other orgs, they will always have gays and child molesters in some capacity, whether they are aware of it or not. At least knowing is better than not knowing.

Hank

[George Anthony]

"RonB" <rnrb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13d55c60-4b21-4f43...@googlegroups.com...

I guess the motto will change to "If the tent's a rockin', don't come
knockin'". I don't know how this can be more acceptable or different than
having Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts in the same tents... or is that next?

[George Anthony]

"dm_callier" <dm.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a83ca7e4-1029-4ba7...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com...

Can you explain how you think not admitting homosexuals has "compromised"
the organization? Scouting membership has been declining for several years
for several reasons. Not admitting "openly homosexuals" is the least of the
problems. There have been sexual abuse scandals (parents don't want to
subject their boys to that potential), the ever-increasing supply of
electronic "toys", decline of the nuclear family leaving single parents who
have no desire to participate in their boys activities, (un)reality
television and other lethargical activities which leave kids with addled
brains and lack of desire to participate in anything requiring physical
activity. By the way, enrollment in the Girl Scouts is declining, also.

My guess is that if you asked scouting age boys (or girls) who are not in
scouting if they chose to opt out because the BSA in not "progressive" most
wouldn't even know what progressive means -- in that or any other context.

The biggest problem I have with (some) homosexuals is that they want to
force the fact that they are on you. The marriage issue not withstanding,
what rights do heterosexuals have that are not afforded to homosexuals? I
don't go around demanding that I should have certain rights because I'm
heterosexual or telling everyone I see that I am. Liberals want a
colorblind, non-bigoted society, yet they promote what are exactly counter
to those things.

[dm_callier]

On May 24, 6:41 am, "George Anthony" <ganth...@gmail.net> wrote:
> "dm_callier" <dm.call...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:a83ca7e4-1029-4ba7...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 23, 7:50 pm, RonB <rnrbro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Well, here we go.  With the Scouts decision to admit gay's compromise a
> >> great organization?  Many churches have already said they will not
> >> support this decision; and many troops are sponsored by churches.
>
> >> RonB
>
> > Not making the decision for so long had already compromised the
> > organization. If it is to survive it might have to exist as something
> > other than a de facto appendage of organized religion. If it isn't
> > flexible enough to adapt then it will wither and die.
>
> Can you explain how you think not admitting homosexuals has "compromised"
> the organization? Scouting membership has been declining for several years
> for several reasons.  Not admitting "openly homosexuals" is the least of the
> problems.

Admittedly only one of many problems...wouldn't know about ranking as
the least, but a "problem" easily remedied. The fact that the BSA
dragged its feet so long just brought more public scrutiny and
approbation.

> There have been sexual abuse scandals (parents don't want to
> subject their boys to that potential), the ever-increasing supply of
> electronic "toys", decline of the nuclear family leaving single parents who
> have no desire to participate in their boys activities, (un)reality
> television and other lethargical activities which leave kids with addled
> brains and lack of desire to participate in anything requiring physical
> activity. By the way, enrollment in the Girl Scouts is declining, also.
>
> My guess is that if you asked scouting age boys (or girls) who are not in
> scouting if they chose to opt out because the BSA in not "progressive" most
> wouldn't even know what progressive means -- in that or any other context.

You could be right. We have increasingly become a society insulated
from one another by our electronic toys. There also has been the
strong relationship between churches and the BSA. As church attendance
decreases, the exposure of children to scouting also decreases. Hard
to see the value in something that is basically hidden from sight
except in negative media releases.

>
> The biggest problem I have with (some) homosexuals is that they want to
> force the fact that they are on you.

Wow...sounds like a personal problem to me.

> The marriage issue not withstanding,
> what rights do heterosexuals have that are not afforded to homosexuals?

Off the top, the right to marry, in most states. The right NOT to be
discrimminated against in the workplace.

>  I
> don't go around demanding that I should have certain rights because I'm
> heterosexual or telling everyone I see that I am.

Bully for you.

> Liberals want a
> colorblind, non-bigoted society, yet they promote what are exactly counter
> to those things.

Huh?

[nothermark]

Given their over riding shift to safety and disregard for a lot of
what is now common practice in the outdoor world I wonder where they
get leaders. As far as that goes is there a gameboy merit badge?

[nothermark]

yup

[Technobarbarian]

"George Anthony" <gant...@gmail.net> wrote in message
news:knnqmn$dj2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>
>
> "dm_callier" <dm.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a83ca7e4-1029-4ba7...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 23, 7:50 pm, RonB <rnrbro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Well, here we go. With the Scouts decision to admit gay's compromise a
>>> great organization? Many churches have already said they will not
>>> support this decision; and many troops are sponsored by churches.
>>>
>>> RonB
>>
>> Not making the decision for so long had already compromised the
>> organization. If it is to survive it might have to exist as something
>> other than a de facto appendage of organized religion. If it isn't
>> flexible enough to adapt then it will wither and die.
>
> Can you explain how you think not admitting homosexuals has "compromised"
> the organization?

Businesses that would otherwise provide financial support couldn't
because of their position on openly gay scouts. More importantly many
parents and individuals who would have supported scouting didn't' because of
this position.

Scouting membership has been declining for several years
> for several reasons. Not admitting "openly homosexuals" is the least of
> the problems. There have been sexual abuse scandals (parents don't want to
> subject their boys to that potential), the ever-increasing supply of
> electronic "toys", decline of the nuclear family leaving single parents
> who have no desire to participate in their boys activities, (un)reality
> television and other lethargical activities which leave kids with addled
> brains and lack of desire to participate in anything requiring physical
> activity. By the way, enrollment in the Girl Scouts is declining, also.
>
> My guess is that if you asked scouting age boys (or girls) who are not in
> scouting if they chose to opt out because the BSA in not "progressive"
> most wouldn't even know what progressive means -- in that or any other
> context.
>
> The biggest problem I have with (some) homosexuals is that they want to
> force the fact that they are on you.

Awwwww, you poor dear--the horror. For many LBGT people coming out of
the closet is a protective measure. When they were hidden it was easy to
demonize them. When you see them all around you, filling ordinary roles and
doing ordinary things rational folks are forced to the realization that
they're otherwise fairly ordinary people.

You might want to keep in mind that, just like you, they have a right
to do anything legal--including being just as flaming out there as they feel
like.

TB

TB

[MaxD]

On 5/24/2013 1:55 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:

>
>
> "George Anthony" wrote:


>> The biggest problem I have with (some) homosexuals is that they want
>> to force the fact that they are on you.

George!! *You* actually said that?? ROFLMAO.

[George Anthony]

"Technobarbarian" <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:knogb0$6b4$1...@dont-email.me...
...

>
> Awwwww, you poor dear--the horror. For many LBGT people coming out of
> the closet is a protective measure. When they were hidden it was easy to
> demonize them. When you see them all around you, filling ordinary roles
> and doing ordinary things rational folks are forced to the realization
> that they're otherwise fairly ordinary people.

There's nothing "ordinary" about homosexuality. They may have "normal" jobs
and go about their daily lives as most others but I see no need for them to
have to wave it my or anyone else's face. By the way, how can someone who's
sexual preference is "in the closet" be demonized? You liberals not only
have no reading comprehension, you have no understanding of contradiction in
terms.

>
> You might want to keep in mind that, just like you, they have a
> right to do anything legal--including being just as flaming out there as
> they feel like.

Flaming? Again with the homophobic comments? The hypocrisy of the left is
unbearable.

> TB
>
> TB

[George Anthony]

"MaxD" <gmd...@att.net> wrote in message
news:519fccae$0$694$c3e8da3$b280...@news.astraweb.com...

> On 5/24/2013 1:55 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
>>
>>
>> "George Anthony" wrote:
>
>
>>> The biggest problem I have with (some) homosexuals is that they want
>>> to force the fact that they are on you.
>
> George!! *You* actually said that?? ROFLMAO.

Is that the best you can do? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical
question. Don't get me started on correcting your grammar, typos and
punctuation. You're the pot calling the kettle black.

>

[MaxD]

It occurs to me that you might have misunderstood my comment. I was
alluding to the tendency of minorities to over-react to situations where
they feel that they have been offended or discriminated against.
The Gays that demonstrate that "in-your-face" attitude are tired of the
discrimination. (for the record I resent the in-your-face attitude of
anyone, no matter their reason)
I find it a bit ironic that you, as a member of a minority whose
members, on occasion, have demonstrated some of that in-your-face
attitude, would comment on it.
How about the in-your-face conservative attitude you demonstrate here?

Maxie, the Honky Pot.

[George Anthony]

"MaxD" <gmd...@att.net> wrote in message

news:51a02d20$0$7283$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...

When it comes to discrimination, it will always be with us. Everyone
discriminates in one way or another. Blacks, for the most part, were
demonstrating for equal rights. Homosexuals are demonstrating to push their
homosexual lifestyle agenda. They already have equal rights. What rights are
afforded to heterosexuals that are not afforded to homosexuals, other than
legalized marriage?

[Hank]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:10:40 AM UTC-4, George Anthony wrote:

> When it comes to discrimination, it will always be with us. Everyone
>
> discriminates in one way or another. Blacks, for the most part, were
>
> demonstrating for equal rights. Homosexuals are demonstrating to push their
>
> homosexual lifestyle agenda. They already have equal rights. What rights are
>
> afforded to heterosexuals that are not afforded to homosexuals, other than
>
> legalized marriage?

You, of all people, have to ask that question? roflmao

Hank

[MaxD]

I don't mind correcting you if I think you might have misstated the
facts (the bridge incident comes to mind) but I'm too busy to give you
an education in the matters of homosexuality, ie, biology, social
ramifications, etc.
Just so you won't misunderstand my position on homosexuality let me be
clear.
I'm opposed to gays using the term "marriage" to describe a legal
agreement that will furnish all legal rights and privileges that are
accorded a male and female marriage. The term "marriage" not only has a
definition, it has cultural meanings.
I'm not a supporter of the sexual conduct of gays but neither am I
prepared to invade their private lives to enforce my morals.

I am persuaded that, in the vast majority of cases, homosexuality is
*not* a choice but a biological fact of life.

If you choose to discriminate concerning homosexuals that's your choice
and I respect that but you seem more inclined to be *prejudiced* toward
gays and that's another matter. There is a difference.

[nothermark]

All the legal benefits that marriage confers on a couple. That is the
issue if you need more than they just want to be married.

I could say the same about hetero couples.

[Bruce S]

I notice that you failed to answer it, so, in your opinion, what RIGHTS
are afforded to heterosexuals that are not afforded to homosexuals?

--
Bruce

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can
win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can
profit."

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:50:39 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/25/2013 7:54 AM, Hank wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:10:40 AM UTC-4, George Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> When it comes to discrimination, it will always be with us. Everyone
>>>
>>> discriminates in one way or another. Blacks, for the most part, were
>>>
>>> demonstrating for equal rights. Homosexuals are demonstrating to push their
>>>
>>> homosexual lifestyle agenda. They already have equal rights. What rights are
>>>
>>> afforded to heterosexuals that are not afforded to homosexuals, other than
>>>
>>> legalized marriage?
>>
>> You, of all people, have to ask that question? roflmao
>>
>> Hank
>
>I notice that you failed to answer it, so, in your opinion, what RIGHTS
>are afforded to heterosexuals that are not afforded to homosexuals?

Bruce, how about the rights and privileges that accrue to being
married?

[Hank]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:50:39 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>
> > You, of all people, have to ask that question? roflmao
>
> >
>
> > Hank
>
>
>
> I notice that you failed to answer it, so, in your opinion, what RIGHTS
>
> are afforded to heterosexuals that are not afforded to homosexuals?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

I guess it all boils down to what I, or you, believe their RIGHTS are. I know you won't agree, but just to give you something to rant about:

They have the right not to be discriminated against, to be promoted in a job, they SHOULD have the right to work for ANY boss, even the catholic church, and etc.

I say the above because a woman was fired after being a teacher for 19 years for the catholic church. As soon as they found out she was gay, she was fired. It's a big ado here in my little area of the world.

Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, I really don't care.

Hank

[George Anthony]

"Hank" <nineb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0d9239f8-4ea2-4845...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, I do. Please tell me.

[George Anthony]

"MaxD" <gmd...@att.net> wrote in message

news:51a0d14c$0$52193$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com...

First, I did not misstate facts about the bridge. Go back and read the
article that was cited in the original post. My comments were based on the
information in that article. Second, If you're too busy to give me an
education in homosexuality, why did you just do it? Third, I've never
discriminated against homosexuals. As a matter of fact, I know several,
consider one a friend (and he knows what I think about the lifestyle) and,
at times, have had them as employees. The reason(s) they left had nothing
to do with their lifestyle. I've said I'm against the lifestyle and I think
it's immoral, I've never said that I discriminate against homosexuals. I'm
not the one they have to answer to if it turns out I'm right and they are
wrong.

And, again, outside of the marriage "issue", what rights do homosexuals not
have?

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:k7s1q8l43ic59ricd...@4ax.com...

I specifically excluded marriage, which would apply to the things that go
with it. That said, however, you are wrong about not getting ALL the legal
benefits of marriage. You may want to look into laws concerning domestic
partnerships. They vary state-by-state and by company but they do provide
legal benefits to homosexual couples (and cohabitating heterosexual
couples).

[Bruce S]

Those are (by definition) not rights; they may very well be
privileges,but they are not rights.

There is NO right to marry - that is why there are laws against marrying
children, siblings, groups, and animals.

It is also why I favor getting government out of marriage completely.
Who gets married should be a personal decision made strictly by the
people involved, and should accrue no legal privileges.

Any legitimate interest the government might have should be settled by a
civil contract.

(But until that time, it should remain a state's rights issue, and
should be resolved by each state, individually, according to the will
have the people of that state - and I will continue to vote in favor of
gay marriage in the future, just as I have done for many years.)

[Bruce S]

None of that has anything to do with marriage, which was the original
subject. But, I agree with you on every point except religious
employment - the 1st amendment takes precedence over gay rights. (You
probably weren't aware of it, but I have supported the idea of gay
marriage (right here) for many years.)

[NotMe]

"RonB" <rnrb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13d55c60-4b21-4f43...@googlegroups.com...

> Well, here we go. With the Scouts decision to admit gay's compromise a
> great organization? Many churches have already said they will not support
> this decision; and many troops are sponsored by churches.
>

I recall similar statements during the 50/60 civil rights 'adjustments'.
Many southern organizations. as did a few in the North. made claims to 'not
support' integration of the various pack/troops.

A** H***s will be AH but in the long run the Boy Scouts survived the AH then
and will survive the current dust up.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 19:02:49 -0500, "George Anthony"

Separate but equal?

;-)

[Major Oz]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:41:13 AM UTC-5, George Anthony wrote:

> Scouting membership has been declining for several years
> for several reasons.

Principle among them the abandonment of scouting as an outdoor activity and turning it into a "socially relevant" wimpy finger painting outfit.

As such, there are too many competitors.

[Pepperoni]

Major Oz <ozm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4b241716-8f7b-4dad...@googlegroups.com:

There is a lot to learn in the Scout Handbook. Things a boy would not
imagine on his own. We learned to splice rope in a dozen ways, make
shelters from the sun and rain, all arouund our fishing lake. We had
fancy fire pits and learned to cook. We carried hatchets and machetes,
and hacked the first trails through the brush tangle along the river.
You cannot get into trouble fishing. The parents could drive by and see
us across the lake.
'67 was the year they burned Detroit. We watched the glow to the south,
Boyhood ended somehow. Several of us joined the military when we turned
17, and retured three years later to a world where our friends were
still seeking their first jobs. They had not changed, but we had.

[nothermark]

And now between the leave no trace folks and the gameboy folks I don't
know where they get people to run troops or participate. That suites
the cadre of city folks who want everyone dependent on somebody else
for everything.